Criminal; Miranda Rights; Jury Instructions; Whether Police
Detective Violated Miranda by Telling Defendant that it was in his Best
Interest to Talk to Police; Whether Trial Court should have Instructed the Jury
that to Find Defendant Guilty of Sexual Assault, it was Required to Unanimously
Agree on the Manner in which the Assault Occurred. In 2003, the defendant and
another individual were arrested in connection with the sexual assault,
kidnapping and shooting of a woman in Hartford. The defendant was taken to the
Hartford police department where he was advised of his Miranda rights,
which he waived by signing a rights waiver form. When the defendant became
upset during questioning, a police detective stated that "[t]hese are
obviously very serious charges. It's in your best interest to talk to us. Give
us your side of the story." The defendant subsequently provided a written
statement of what occurred during the incident. At trial, the defendant moved
to suppress his statement, which the trial court denied. In doing so, the
court determined that the defendant was informed of his Miranda rights
and that he knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived those rights. The
court further concluded that there was no evidence that the police engaged in
coercive tactics during questioning, finding that the defendant was provided
with a cigarette upon request, was allowed to sleep and was questioned for less
than four hours. After the state completed its case-in-chief, the trial court
held a charging conference, at which it noted that there was evidence that the
complainant was sexually assaulted in different ways and that the jurors could
potentially disagree on the manner in which the assault occurred. It
subsequently instructed the jury that it could find the defendant guilty of the
crimes of attempted murder, kidnapping in the first degree, assault in the
first degree, and sexual assault in the first degree based upon a theory of
either principal or accessorial liability. It further instructed that in order
for the defendant to be found guilty as an accessory, the state must establish,
among other things, that he acted with the mental state necessary for the
commission of the crime charged. The jury ultimately found the defendant guilty
of, among other things, attempted murder, kidnapping in the first degree,
assault in the first degree, and sexual assault in the first degree. In this
appeal, the defendant argues that his motion to suppress should have been
granted because the police detective impermissibly altered the Miranda
warnings that had previously been given by stating that it was in the
defendant's best interest to talk to the police. He further maintains that
because the sexual assault count essentially charged him with assaulting the
complainant in several different ways, the trial court should have instructed
the jury that to find the defendant guilty of that count, it was required to
unanimously agree on the manner in which the assault occurred. His final claim
is that the court improperly failed to instruct the jury regarding the specific
intent required to find him guilty as an accessory of the crimes of attempted
murder, kidnapping in the first degree, assault in the first degree, and sexual
assault in the first degree.